Continuity of Reports
The Council permits a case to remain in the Cock Goblin archive when witness language, site behavior, and recurring report patterns justify comparative review, even when the underlying cause is unresolved.
Observation • Documentation • Public Preparedness
The Regional Committee for Anomalous Boundary Fauna did not dissolve after the 1978 reconciliation. It remains a small independent field organization with active correspondents in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and West Virginia. The Council and RCABF exchange limited case information while maintaining materially different standards of classification.
The Council permits a case to remain in the Cock Goblin archive when witness language, site behavior, and recurring report patterns justify comparative review, even when the underlying cause is unresolved.
RCABF rejects common-name classification at intake. Reports are indexed first by site type and observed behavior; association with a named cryptid is deferred until conventional wildlife, human activity, and environmental causes have been reviewed.
RCABF remains separately incorporated and publishes its own annual methods circular. It has not rejoined the Council and does not recognize Council chapter authority.
Public correspondence indicates active reviewers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, southern New York, and West Virginia. RCABF does not publish a complete membership roll.
Contact is professional but narrow. Raw files may be exchanged when both organizations are reviewing the same location, provided witness restrictions permit transfer.
| Issue | Council practice | RCABF practice |
|---|---|---|
| Common name | Used as an archive heading; not treated as proof of identity. | Excluded from primary field classification. |
| Object displacement | Retained when documented, with evidentiary weight stated separately. | Normally excluded until human and weather baselines are completed. |
| Witness terminology | Preserved verbatim alongside standardized indexing. | Preserved, but named-cryptid terms are masked during first-stage review. |
| Public warnings | May be issued from clusters of unresolved reports when a site hazard exists. | Generally limited to conventional hazards regardless of cryptid interpretation. |
| Case sharing | Accepted with source notation. | Accepted only after methodology packet accompanies the file. |
In April 2026, RCABF returned four Council case summaries because the initial packets included the archive term “boundary hold” before mundane site review had been completed. The Council resubmitted the same material with raw observation fields only. RCABF accepted three files and declined one.
Neither organization altered its published method. Joint correspondence remains open.
Both organizations participated in the 2018 culvert-safety statement and share preservation standards for original photographs and audio.
Case numbers are not interchangeable. A report may appear in both archives under different classifications and review statuses.
Individual members occasionally belong to both organizations. Dual membership does not permit transfer of restricted witness information.
RCABF requested timestamps from three Council reports after receiving a separate boundary-fauna submission within the same forty-minute interval. Location data were exchanged without witness names.
RCABF criticized the Council's continued use of “probable” in public database status fields, arguing that the term can be mistaken for taxonomic probability. The Council retained the field and added no new interpretive guidance.
Four files were exchanged under revised raw-data conditions. Three remain in both organizations' systems under different classifications. One was declined by RCABF after baseline review.
The organization emerged during the 1972–1978 Lexical Schism. The Council’s account of the dispute and RCABF’s surviving circulars disagree on several procedural details.